As the memory of the massacre in Newtown, Conn., faded, the gun bill it prompted seemed set to sputter toward a quiet death of its own. But amid an aggressive lobbying campaign this week by Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scheduled a key procedural vote for the first major gun-control package in two decades, signaling the party had mustered the numbers to overcome a Republican filibuster and setting up a showdown in the Senate on Thursday.

“We’re moving forward on this bill,” the Nevada Democrat told a throng of reporters in an ornate hallway on the second floor of the U.S. Capitol. “The American people deserve a vote.”

But it was far from clear Tuesday night that the Senate, even if it voted to end a filibuster this week, would actually approve a sweeping new gun-control package. The Senate bill, which passed through the Judiciary Committee in March, would expand background checks, curb gun trafficking and set aside $40 million to beef up school security. Elements of the background-check provision inflamed a bloc of Republicans, led by the Tea Party trio of Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz, who pledged weeks ago to block consideration of any legislation that infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms. A dozen Republicans, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, signed onto the vow, casting doubt not just on the bill’s prospects for passage, but also its ability to win a simple vote. “My belief in the Second Amendment is strong enough that I believe we should use parliamentary procedure to win this fight,” Paul told a business group in Somerset, Ky., late last month.

But the Republican caucus has slowly splintered over the merits of a filibuster, with at least eight Republican senators indicating that they oppose using procedural tactics to block debate. With Democrats controlling 55 seats in the Senate, including two independent members who caucus with the majority, they appear set to garner the 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster, as long as conservative Democrats don’t break ranks on Thursday.

That is no sure thing. “I don’t know,” Reid conceded when asked whether the legislation had 60 votes. “I’ve not leaned on any one of my Democratic senators. I don’t get all of the Democrats all of the time. That’s for sure.” If the procedural step known as a “cloture” vote failed, Reid said, he would use parliamentary maneuvers to put the legislation on the floor, such as a provision that allows the majority leader to sidestep the traditional committee process. “We’re going to vote on this anyway,” he said, adding, “it may take a little time.”

Even if the Senate clears a path Thursday toward a final vote later this month, there is no guarantee the bill will ultimately pass. While some 90% of American voters support tougher background checks to stanch the wave of gun violence washing across the U.S., conservatives bitterly oppose record-keeping requirements. In an effort to broker a compromise with a better shot of earning bipartisan support, a pair of negotiators — West Virginia Democratic Senator Joe Manchin, a moderate with a history of supporting gun rights, and Pennsylvania Republican Senator Pat Toomey, a conservative who has emerged as an influential dealmaker — appeared to hash out an agreement late Tuesday night that would expand background checks to commercial sales — including gun shows and online transaction — while excepting some private transfers, such as among family members.

Reid said Tuesday that the two negotiators would be able to introduce their deal, which the senators plan to unveil at a Capitol Hill press conference Wednesday morning, as an amendment. That process is expected to include votes on banning military-style assault weapons and limiting the size of ammunition clips. Those provisions are likely to fail.

The move toward a vote comes amid an all-out push by the Obama Administration and Democratic Senators to shame conservatives seeking to prevent a vote. On Monday the President traveled to Connecticut, where he harnessed the full powers of the presidential bully pulpit just an hour from the site of the December rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary.

“If our democracy is working the way it’s supposed to, and 90% of the American people agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy you’d think this would not be a heavy lift,” he told an impassioned crowd at the University of Hartford. “And yet, some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms. Think about that. They’re not just saying they’ll vote ‘no’ on ideas that almost all Americans support. They’re saying they’ll do everything they can to even prevent any votes on these provisions. They’re saying your opinion doesn’t matter. And that’s not right.”

In the Senate on Tuesday, Democrats blistered their Republican colleagues for threatening to use parliamentary tactics to obstruct legislation of this magnitude. Democrat Patrick Leahy, a gun owner and the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said conservatives who sought to block debate “don’t deserve to be a Senator ” if they “don’t have the courage to stand up and vote yes or no.”

Indeed, a cadre of Republican Senators –most, if not all, of whom are likely to oppose the final bill — said they would not join a filibuster. “I think it deserves a vote up or down,” Georgia Senator Johnny Isakson told CBS News. For some Republicans, defying the President to take a controversial stand on the Second Amendment could be a political boon. Paul and Rubio, for example, are possible presidential candidates who have an incentive to shore up their right flank after backing comprehensive immigration reform. And some senators from blood-red states have few political imperatives other than to avoid a primary challenge.

But as some Republican strategists conceded, a filibuster would put other members in perilous territory to little obvious advantage. The provisions of the gun package most loathed by conservatives, including an assault-weapons ban and limits on high-capacity clips, look certain to fail. Senators can vote against the bill without resorting to a parliamentary maneuver that could irritate constituents sick of Washington gimmickry. And even if Democrats can garner the 51 votes required to move the bill out of the Senate, the legislation would have to navigate the turbulent waters of the Republican-controlled House.

Reid, who was among a group of Senators to meet Tuesday with relatives of the victims of the Newtown massacre, said inaction was not an option. “It would be a real slap in the face to the American people,” he said, “not to do something.”

Moving the bill toward the floor is a step toward fulfilling the promise the President laid out in the wake of the tragedy. At the end of his State of the Union in January, Obama delivered a stirring peroration, ticking off the sites of mass shootings and the names of their victims. “They deserve a vote,” he told the nation. Now it appears they will get one. There is still no certainty, however, that it will turn out the way he wanted.

hi Maria! i like your post which you posted some days back...can i be your friend so that we both can know each other better?....Hope to read from you again bye for now and do have a nice weekend over there....

Hey Communists!! An AR-15 is a SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLE. I know your CNN and CBS comrades would have you believe it is a military assault weapon but only ignorant people like them and several posters here subscribe to that lunacy. Maybe McMillan would entertain all of us here with a list of current military personnel in any country using the AR-15 as their main 'assault weapon'. Oh, you mean they do not exist?? Is that because you are an idiot or that you watch too much CNN??? The only foolishness here is a handful of communists thinking they will infringe upon my Second Amendment rights written by far wiser men than occupy the Out House now. Keep your kindergarten opinion on political matters to yourself unless you actually have anything meaningful to say, COMRADE. By the way North Korea would suit your defeatist way of thinking far better than America.

Hey Communist posters, live in your own version of the USSR don't think you speak for me or millions of Americans who understand the Sandy Hook Hoax was invented for sheeple like you. Your 'reasonable' insanity is typical of Sheeple folding under government psychiatric pressure. It's a real stretch??? Maybe you need to type in 'Obama gun grab' and at least read 15 of the millions of pages dedicated to waking you up about Senator Feinstein and Obama. They want ALL THE GUNS, the fake background check feel good lie is a precursor to REGISTRATION which leads to CONFISCATION in every example put forth by History. Once again feel free to do a little research before thinking you have all the answers and Final Say about someone else's Second Amendment rights. Time is a left wing shill publication already doomed to the past anyway. Who cares what you Liberal Loonies want to give up regarding personal rights and freedoms, leave the rest of us out of your Communist Orwellian Nightmare.

Cars don't kill people, people who drive them do. That's why we have drivers licenses and traffic enforcement etc. Why not with guns. The government knows who owns what cars too in case of hit and run. Good thing that! The government could really put a hurt on us and take away our cars which would really hurt us in case the government wants to declare war on us - guns or no guns.

Another comment. I just don't get the argument that " guns don't kill people, people do". We cant ban people so we need to regulate their access to guns which the wrong kind of people kill with. 88% of law abiding gun owning citizens of sound mind and body don't think background checks with fewer loopholes are unreasonable. Its a real stretch to think that the government wants our guns and privacy is being violated. If you are law abiding then you have no worries. The judiciary would never let a law to confiscate guns stand. Some elements of the Senate plan like making it a felony to give a gun to a friend or family member are extreme. Instead if a felony is committed with this gun then the registered owner should be liable. Lets stop playing war games Patriots and start being reasonable.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

This is the Second Amendment. I personally read it in the context of US History when it was written. Each state or colony had militias to defend themselves from Indians and the British. The above strikes ME anyway as a continuance of that need as the country was being formed. it doesn't read to ME as a license for anyone to have a gun much less any KIND of gun. Having said that reasonable laws allowing citizens to own guns are needed. Background checks with reduced loopholes ( internet and gun shows ) are reasonable.

So let's all arm ourselves, drive drunk and smoke in enclosed public places because we are all going to die anyway!...Definitely, one can not have an intelligent discussion with obtuse & absurd people. I'm done

Guns are never responsible for gun violence. It's PEOPLE who use guns who may be violent. This nation is imperiled by a President who is an enemy of liberty and is spending us into bankruptcy as a deliberate policy. We need no more gun laws. We need NO gun-free zones where only the lawless will have guns. We certainly don't need the federal government knowing where all guns are located. Registering gun owners is not a thing that will in any way help our nation, but instead might work against our liberties. The Constitution doesn't need revision.

You are obviously insane and demonstrate even more the urgent need to keep guns out of the hands of lunatics. I'm all for the second amendment, however we need to find a compromise becasue too many unstable people have acess to assault weapons. What exactly do you need a assault weapon for, other thent to assualt someone? If you can figure out another way to keep guns out of he hands of bad people, I will be all for it but to deny that we need some type of restrictions on these assualt guns is frankly foolish.

@downenrayand I might add that the background checks seem quite logical because you need to asses the type of person who will have a gun.

People who are not thinking clearly should not have guns. It makes complete sense to fully understand who is mentally able to handle a gun safely. For more information about warnings about the mind altering medications available , please read this: http://www.cchrint.org/psychiatric-drugs/

@downenray It's funny that NRA loons are the ones that always speak out. All they see is "the guv'rnment gonna take mah guns!" The world isn't black and white. We can have laws that promote responsible acquisition and use of firearms without banning them. If you're going to keep pushing for an all-or-nothing policy, you'll probably end up regretting what you wished for.

Okay. I go crazy and stab 14 people with a knife... none of whom die. I go crazy with an assault weapon and kill 26 people in a locked school in five minutes. A citizen in society has no right to that kind of power anymore than you have a right to a nuclear bomb... or maybe you think you have a right to a nuclear bomb. Nuclear bombs don't kill people. People kill people. I'm a good person so I have the right to defend myself against nuclear armed aggressors.

I am a legal gun owner in one of the hardest states to get a gun permit and I can probably pop a cap in anyone coming through my front door even if they have an assault weapon... with my trusty 22. That doesn't mean I want assault weapons in my place of employment or carried around by the twits I might have to shop with or share a road with. Maybe you feel safer surrounded by random heavily armed idiots?

@NormanDostal If you mean that I'm a religious freak, I will comment that every living person will one day meet a judgment day, ready or not. And those who have ignored or fought against God will very much wish they had not been on the losing side. Satan is the loser. God's people win and will enjoy eternity. We also have much more to enjoy here on earth as we realize that God loves us now and will love us forever.

@CerebralSmartie Who needs to assess the type of person who will have a gun? Is it the president? Or could someone nearer handle the checking with equal or better results? The more federal employees we have, the quicker this nation will be ruined by having spent more than it could afford to spend. Obama seeks our ruin. Patriots want to heal what is wrong and encourage good things to come. Anything states can do for themselves, they save money by doing themselves rather than asking the federal government to do. As for who should be entitled to possess a gun, anyone thought capable of voting should be entitled to buy and use whatever items the person wants and can afford.

@Coach63DH It's the people who want lists of gun owners that I worry about, for the only purpose of such a list is so the guns can be confiscated when the government wants to prevent rebellion by patriots. The people I worry about are those in our national capital who fear the citizenry.

@glennra3 And there seems little point to speaking truth to people who have no respect for truth. We have criminals in the U.S.A. Yes, we do. They are enemies of those who are law-abiding. So if we make more laws, will that affect those who have no respect FOR law? Of course not. How foolish are those who jump on the gun-control bandwagon. We already have all the laws we need to prevent things these new laws are aimed to prevent, but those who do the bad things have no respect for our laws. It's foolish indeed to make more laws while our present laws are ignored.

@glennra3 Setting up a national registry of gun owners is not desirable unless we want to be able to confiscate those guns. Making more laws doesn't address the problem of lawlessness. How foolish some are who suppose that criminals will obey NEW laws even if they wouldn't obey present laws. Obama is merely aiming at preventing armed rebellion as his attacks on the nation grow more intensive and resentment increases.

@ZacPetit We "loons" love liberty. Making laws only aids those who ignore laws. Every citizen has a right to own a gun or any number of guns. No law should be passed to regulate sale or possession of guns. Laws only affect the law-abiding. Our gun problems are NOT from legal owners of guns, but of criminals who have no regard for laws.

@NormanDostal I've lived a long life. Some of my best friends have been of a different race than mine. Particularly Spanish (Mexico and Puerto Rico) and Negro (native born but "of color") people who as I do have loved God and served Him well. No post from my pen on any blog would say otherwise. I'm a veteran. I've voted in every election since I was eligible to vote. I care deeply for the liberty which is loved by patriots in the U.S.A. I marvel that Norman can dare suggest that I hate blacks and expect anyone to believe the slur. It's because I love liberty that I warn against Obama and his attempts to rule as a dictator in the U.S.A.

@downenray@Coach63DH Rebellion by patriots? Here is a new flash for you gramps, if you are thinking of taking up arms against our legally elected government, you aren't a patriot. Merely another anarchist with an axe to grind.

@downenray@glennra3 How many gun deaths result from profit seeking professional criminals? Very few of the 30,000 thousand. Most are suicides, followed by crimes of passion including domestic violence and murder-suicide.

We are not talking about "truth," but rather opinions. We have differing opinions. We each interpret this particular truth differently, which is not unusual, since there isn't an issue or topic that can't be seen from multiple perspectives.

I strongly disagree with your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, but that doesn't mean I think you are a liar.

@glennra3 I don't mind at all when people disagree with me, but when they proclaim lies and call them truth, I do object. It's the truth that we have a second amendment which allows citizens to arm themselves for protection against any opponent including a government. This is a very good law. Laws seeking to amend it by legislation are not acceptable. An amendment is required if it's to be circumvented. I'm sorry you have no respect for the truth.

@NormanDostal Do we see no difference between background checks and a national registry of gun owners? Is it someone in Washington, D.C. who checks prior to a gun being sold to any individual now? Why would the checking need to be by federals? States manage to handle automobile purchases and licensing, at far less cost than if it were federals in charge.

@CerebralSmartie I only point out that without the list, the federals would have to go house-to-house to confiscate our guns, and it's obvious that "they" do want to remove the guns from us citizens. Obama's plan to take over the nation piece by piece is hindered by patriots who will not allow it but will be rendered helpless if he has all the guns and ammunition.

@downenray@glennra3 Pure red herring. Nobody is advocating for that. Does registering your car mean that want to grab it? Does having a fishing license mean they want to grab your pole, so to speak? Does registering your dog mean they want that too? Does registering for the Selective Service System...hey, why don't you guys speak out when the government really does want to abuse your freedom? Odd that.

@glennra3 So someone in an office somewhere will know where all the criminals and mentally ill with guns are located if we just set up a national registry of gun owners? Don't we already have lists of criminals and lists of people who are mentally troubled? Let's send people to collect guns from THOSE people. Unfortunately some in government suppose that people most of us would think were patriotic citizens don't deserve to have a gun, so the new laws would try to make sure of them not having a gun. Would YOU be on the government's list? Most veterans would. All who had ever visited a psychologist would be on the list. And do we have the men and the means to make all these confiscations? The furor is ridiculous. Pass another law! Spend more billions. That's what we need. But I think not.

@NormanDostal Attacks on liberty in the U.S.A. are the business of every patriot. As for the existence of many gods, that is contradictory to logic and good sense. There is one God. He made our universe. He will someday judge us all individually, rewarding some and punishing others. Murder is murder whether I have a womb or not. No, I'm male. My business includes keeping this nation safe from attacks, the most recent of which are from the White House.

@NormanDostal Those who created a nation on this continent many years ago sought religious liberty. They wisely created documents providing for liberty for all and instructing the government to never interfere in the religious life of the citizens. There are many patriots today alive who continue to love God and liberty and who will take whatever steps are necessary to prevent the citizens from being forced to serve other lords than Jesus Christ. I observe that Obama is a Muslim and is seeking to destroy our economy so that the nation can be taken over by Islam, but he will not succeed. Those who love liberty will not accept the decrees of Obamaland.

@NormanDostal There's nothing weird about loving life and opposing murder. My apartment is on the third floor of a large apartment house, but no trees are available for support. As for you receiving anything, let it be noted that you are on report as being one who is a fool who thinks there is no God. After this life, we all will know that there indeed is a God who made the world and all that's in our universe. And those are foolish indeed who imagine things just happened to happen to create life as we know it. Abortion is murder of an innocent sentient being. In very rare cases, it may be a necessary procedure if carrying the child is dangerous to the life of the mother. If done for convenience, it's no more "legal" than any other taking of innocent life.

@downenray@glennra3 Which Muslim is that you paranoid loon? Speaking of hating liberties what's with you righties and keeping people of same sex from getting married. Seems you are all about liberty for yourself and restricting liberties for everyone else.

@glennra3 Do some suppose that women have a right to have their baby murdered at any age? I think murder is wrong. I think murderers do not have a constitutionally-protected right to murder. I am glad for any steps taken to protect life, particularly of those unable to protect themselves. No, we are not seeking to remove any rights by protecting the innocent. Every patriot should uphold and guard our constitutional rights. Could a majority of the Supreme Court ever be wrong? Could a majority of the voting citizens in the U.S.A. be wrong? Yes, would that make right what they did that was wrong? No, it would not. Abortion is murder, and we all are the losers from the many future tax-payers whose lives were taken in the womb. To say nothing of their right to life which was ignored. The majority is not always right, as is evident in the 2012 Presidential election. The majority of votes counted were for a Muslim who hates our liberties and is doing his best to destroy the nation. The majority is not always right.

So, you are ashamed of your nation simply because we have a president you don't like? What a poor sense of patriotism you have.

Tell me, do you also decry the many Republican governors and legislators who are violating the Constitution by passing laws to strip women of their right to reproductive services, including abortion? This has been upheld by the Supreme Court as a Constitutionally protected right, yet conservatives and Republicans are doing all they can to violate that right.

Or are you one of those people who believe that only the Right is entitled to determine what is Constitutional, no matter what the Supreme Court or the American people say?

@ZacPetit We "loons" and "nutcases" have managed to have a nation to be proud of until very recently. We still have many sensible partisans like Mike Huckabee and Ben Carson and many more who are not carried away into nonsense by foolish lawmakers who think creating yet another law will surely solve all our problems. We have a Constitution. We like it. It serves us well. We don't need laws aimed at circumventing the Constitution. This whipping up a frenzy to take away our guns is not sensible by any measure of sanity.

We ALL love liberty. Why do so many people on the Right turn every debate into a Holy Crusade?

On one hand we have the defenders of liberty, the believers in the Constitution, the lovers of America. And the other side? Dastardly anti-American heathens looking to bring down civilization and institute a thousand year reign of darkness.

OK downenray, let's play that game. Let's throw out all of the laws. Hurray, liberty! Except now we're going to take your house. Why? Because we can. We're also going to take your guns. Why? Not against the law. While we're at it, you've been giving us a hard time, so we're going to "silence" you. No need to worry, we'll never be brought to justice because hey - it's not illegal.

But that's not what you really believe. You like your house, your car, your shiny, vintage gun collection. You want to keep all of that. This argument against background checks or "registration" is just the only argument you can make so you do it. But kudos, enough of you wackos are saying it so your representatives are pushing hard against reform. Congratulations. As for the rest of us, we will continue to push for common-sense reform to gun ownership and you nutcases will hopefully just die off some day.